Jose Miguel Hilario v. Warden FCI Marianna ( 2014 )

Case: 13-15551 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-15551
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00357-RS-GRJ
JOSE MIGUEL HILARIO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN FCI MARIANNA,
TERRENCE P. DONNELLY,
Assistant United States Attorney,
DAVID L. MARTIN,
Magistrate Judge for District of Rhode Island,
MARY M. LISI,
Chief District Judge for District of Rhode Island,
UNKNOWN,
Two Female FBI Federal Agents, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(March 28, 2014)
Case: 13-15551 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 2 of 5
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Miguel Hilario, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the order
dismissing his civil rights complaint against federal officials for violations of his
constitutional rights. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted, on the ground that Hilario’s claims
necessarily implied the invalidity of his conviction and, because his conviction had
not been invalidated, they were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
Additionally, the court dismissed the complaint on frivolity grounds, concluding
that several of the defendants -- the President and Vice President of the United
States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the district
judge who presided over Hilario’s sentencing -- were immune from suit. On
appeal, Hilario argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint
because: (1) Heck does not apply to Bivens1 claims; and (2) the defendants were
not immune from suit. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), viewing the allegations in the complaint as true, and review for
abuse of discretion a dismissal as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Hughes v.
Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2003).
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2
Case: 13-15551 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 3 of 5
First, we find no merit to Hilario’s argument that Heck does not apply to his
claims. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that:
[I]n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness
would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove
that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged
by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make
such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
512 U.S. at 486-87. If such a § 1983 action is brought before the challenged
conviction or sentence is invalidated, it must be dismissed. Id. at 487. Thus, “the
district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the
complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.
The Supreme Court held in Bivens that injured plaintiffs can bring a cause of
action for damages against federal officers based on violations of their
constitutional rights. 403 U.S. at 389. We have held that a Bivens claim is
analogous to a § 1983 claim against a state or local officer. Smith ex rel. Smith v.
Siegelman, 322 F.3d 1290, 1297 n.15 (11th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have held
that Heck applies with equal force to claims brought pursuant to Bivens. Abella v.
Rubino, 63 F.3d 1063, 1065 (11th Cir. 1995).
3
Case: 13-15551 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 4 of 5
Here, Hilario’s claims -- which essentially allege that the defendants violated
his constitutional rights by unlawfully exercising jurisdiction over him and
prosecuting him -- necessarily implied the invalidity of his underlying conviction
in the District of Rhode Island. Absent the invalidation of his conviction, which
had not occurred, Hilario’s claims were barred. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487.
Furthermore, Heck applied with equal force to his complaint against federal
officers as it would to a complaint against state officers. See Abella, 63 F.3d at
1065. Accordingly, the district court did not err when it dismissed the complaint
for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Nor are we persuaded by Hilario’s claim that the district court erred when it
dismissed as frivolous the complaint against the President and Vice President of
the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the district
judge who presided over Hilario’s sentencing. A lawsuit is frivolous if it is
without arguable merit either in law or fact. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349
(11th Cir. 2001); Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (a case is
frivolous when it appears that the plaintiff has little or no chance of success). A
judge receives judicial immunity, which is an absolute immunity from money
damages, if the judge dealt with the plaintiff in a judicial capacity, unless the judge
acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction. Harris v. Deveaux, 780 F.2d 911, 914
(11th Cir. 1986). The Supreme Court has also recognized the defense of absolute
4
Case: 13-15551 Date Filed: 03/28/2014 Page: 5 of 5
immunity for officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires
complete protection from suit. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982).
Included in the list of officials who receive such immunity are “legislators, in their
legislative functions” and the President of the United States. Id.As the record makes clear, Hilario does not bring specific claims against the
President, the Vice President or the Speaker of the House defendants in their
individual capacities. Rather, he complains of them generally. As a result, these
defendants are immune from Hilario’s claims. Likewise, there are no specific
allegations against the district judge for actions outside of Hilario’s sentencing
proceedings. These actions were within her judicial capacity and afford her
immunity. Sibley, 437 F.3d at 1070; Harris, 780 F.2d at 914. Because Hilario
would have little or no chance of success on any claim against the immune
defendants, these claims are frivolous. Carroll, 984 F.2d at 393. Accordingly, the
district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed these claims on frivolity
grounds.
AFFIRMED.
5